Today(on 24th May), The Supreme Court declined to issue an interim order on a petition from the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which sought prompt disclosure of authenticated final voter turnout data for all polling stations in the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections 2024, within 48 hours of polls closing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] Voter Turnout Data | SC Refuses to Direct ECI for Publishing Total Votes Polled per Booth](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SC.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today(on 24th May), The Supreme Court refrained from issuing an interim directive on a petition filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which sought immediate disclosure of authenticated final voter turnout data for all polling stations in the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections 2024. The request was for this information to be made available within 48 hours of the polls closing.
A vacation bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma addressed the petitioner, highlighting that the interim prayer was effectively a repetition of a request made in a main petition that has been pending since 2019.
“Compare prayer B from the 2019 plea with prayer A from the 2024 interim application… place them side by side. Previous Supreme Court rulings clearly indicate limitations, stating that such actions are not permissible, with one 1985 judgment suggesting rare exceptions… However, why was this application not filed on March 16 in this instance?”
-the Court inquired.
ALSO READ: ECI to SC: “No Legal Mandate to Disclose Voter Turnout Data Under Form 17C”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing ADR, responded-
“We could only have filed after disclosures were made by the ECI.”
emphasizing that the timing of the application was contingent on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) actions. Despite the arguments presented, the Court decided against granting any immediate relief, opting to postpone further discussions until after the summer vacation.
“Prima facie we are not inclined to grant any interim relief, as prayer A of the 2019 petition mirrors prayer B of the 2024 application. The interim plea will be listed after the (summer) vacation.”
– the Court decreed, clarifying that no definitive opinion on the merits of the case had been formed beyond this preliminary view.
Background:
The ADR’s application was submitted in response to a significant increase in the final voter turnout figures announced by the ECI for the first two phases of the Lok Sabha elections, compared to the initial estimates provided on the polling day. The application pointed out that the data published on April 30 showed a sharp increase of about 5-6% in the final voter turnout compared to the initial percentages announced by the ECI.
This discrepancy, coupled with the delay in announcing the voter turnout, has led to concerns among voters and political parties about the accuracy of the data. The ADR’s application highlighted these concerns, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the election process.
ADR’s plea emphasizes the necessity for transparency in the electoral process, urging the ECI to publish scanned, legible copies of Form 17C Part-I, which records the account of votes, on its official website immediately after each election phase. The organization also seeks the publication of Part-II of Form 17C, detailing candidate-wise election results after the compilation of the final counts.
![[BREAKING] Voter Turnout Data | SC Refuses to Direct ECI for Publishing Total Votes Polled per Booth](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/election.webp?resize=820%2C492&ssl=1)
Additionally, the ECI has faced accusations of failing to meet its obligations by not promptly providing accurate data from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). In response, the ECI refuted these allegations in an affidavit, stating that fulfilling such demands could confuse voters, as the data would also include counts from postal ballots. The affidavit further criticized ADR for purportedly engaging in a
“A persistent and malicious campaign or design aimed at constantly fostering suspicion and doubt in every possible way, through misleading claims and baseless accusations regarding the Election Commission of India’s handling of elections… The apparent intention and pattern behind these actions are to sow uncertainty and cause harm before the truth can come to light.”
During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh challenged the validity of ADR’s concerns, asserting that the Supreme Court had already settled related issues in a judgment dated April 26, and that the current plea was barred by the principle of res judicata.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Sends Notice to ECI on Free Symbol Allotment Challenge
“It has been established that raising new issues after the delivery of judgment and subsequently casting doubts on the integrity of the electoral process is impermissible. This principle has been upheld within the framework of constructive res judicata.”
– Singh argued.
Singh further implicated the continuous litigation as a potential cause for the recent decline in voter turnout, positing that such legal challenges only serve to confuse the electorate.
“Consider the maintainability and behavior of the petitioner. During ongoing elections, the filing of continuous petitions based solely on mere apprehensions undermines the integrity of the Election Commission of India. This situation exemplifies suspicion and risks eroding trust in the electoral process.”
-he contended.
